Maass v Musion Events Ltd & Ors

Maass v Musion Events Ltd & Ors

The arbitrator decided the jurisdictional challenge without giving Mr Maass a proper opportunity to present his case, in breach of section 33 of the Arbitration Act 1996. This constituted a serious irregularity under section 68(2)(a), causing substantial injustice because the jurisdictional challenge was reasonably arguable and could have succeeded. Relief under section 68 is therefore appropriate.

Parties
Claimant: Alfred Uwe Maass; First Defendant: Musion Events Limited; Second Defendant: Ian Christopher O’Connell; Third Defendant: William James Rock
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Commercial Arbitration Challenge / Judgment on Applications Under Sections 67 and 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Application under section 68 allowed; relief to be determined after further submissions.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal, Costs in Arbitration, Serious Irregularity Under Section 68, Interpretation of Arbitration Awards
Arbitration Commercial Law Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal Costs in Arbitration Serious Irregularity Under Section 68 Interpretation of Arbitration Awards

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alfred Uwe Maass

Claimant

Musion Events Limited

First Defendant

Ian Christopher O’Connell

Second Defendant

William James Rock

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Arbitration Challenge / Judgment on Applications Under Sections 67 and 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator had jurisdiction to make the September award
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator's determination of jurisdiction was procedurally fair
  3. 3 Whether the award of costs was valid in light of the jurisdictional challenge

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator decided the jurisdictional challenge without giving Mr Maass a proper opportunity to present his case, in breach of section 33 of the Arbitration Act 1996. This constituted a serious irregularity under section 68(2)(a), causing substantial injustice because the jurisdictional challenge was reasonably arguable and could have succeeded. Relief under section 68 is therefore appropriate.

Court Disposition

Application under section 68 allowed; relief to be determined after further submissions.